CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Eliminate SO Unassisted?

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Eliminate SO Unassisted?
From: "David J. Sourdis" <hk1kxa@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:49:31 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Eliminating SO Unassisted.

Then next step, would be eliminating the SO, because of some multi-ops could 
declare themselves SOps, and so on with MS, M2R and more radios...

David  
HK1KXA
EC5KXA



> >
> > VE4ZT:
> > >We can accept a class for packet. Why is it so hard to
> > accept it if Skimmer is deemed to be equivalent to packet?
> >
> >         Not only equivalent but *indistinguishable* from
> > Packet by log-checking software.  If Skimmer is OK for
> > single-op unassisted, and you cannot distinguish the
> > operating signature from assisted, then the obvious
> > solution is to make one single-op class without any
> > restrictions.  In the words of K3MD on the Skimmer
> > poll page:
> >
> > "Most likely the way this should be handled is to place users in the
> > assisted or MS category, depending on the contest. However, since
> > there is widespread abuse of the assisted category in entries sent in
> > as SO, the wider question would be, "should the SO (nonassisted)
> > category be eliminated?"
> >
> >                 http://www.contesting.com/survey/204
> > (BTW that poll is now closed, 32% for Skimmer, 58% against)
> >
> >         In fact there is now a new poll question by VE5ZX which
> > poses K3MD's question:
> >
> > "WAE and RDXC recently merged assisted and non-assisted single
> > operator categories. Would you favour such a move for the CQWW contest?
> > "
> >
> >                 http://www.contesting.com/survey/
> >
> >         But surprisingly the WRTC 2010 organizers are being
> > pig-headed.  Are they anti-technology Luddites?  Don't they know that
> > the true test of operating skill is all these neat technology tools
> > and not the operators themselves?
> >
> >
> > "No way!" was the answer from WRTC 2010 organizer Igor "Harry"
> > Booklan RA3AUU when asked if the Skimmer would be allowed in the
> > World Radiosport Team Championships in Russia.
> >
> > "No cluster. No skimmer. No super check partial. No other
> > assistance," Booklan told radio-sport.net.
> >
> >                 http://www.radio-sport.net/skimmer8.htm
> >
> >         This thing just keeps getting weirder and weirder...(and
> > funnier)!  As I said to K3MD, "
> >
> > I love your sports medicine logic. Since so many athletes are using
> > steroids, let's just declare steroids legal."  ;-)
> >
> >
> >                                 73,  Bill  W4ZV
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_________________________________________________________________
Discover the new Windows Vista
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>